Hayat (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream), to a 27-year-old man from Bangladesh. The applicant sought to visit his brother in Australia for three months. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant requirement under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted. This involved considering whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of any previous visas (which was not applicable as he had not travelled overseas before) and whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 600 visa, specifically the condition that he must not remain in Australia after the end of his permitted stay. The Tribunal also had to consider any other relevant matters, including the applicant's employment and financial situation in Bangladesh.

The Tribunal found the evidence regarding the applicant's employment and financial situation to be confused and unconvincing. There were discrepancies between the applicant's account of his business operations and the information provided by his brother, who was sponsoring the application. Specifically, the applicant claimed to have operated his electronic goods shop for about 12 months with two employees, while his brother stated the business had been operating for three to four years and had no employees. The Tribunal did not accept the brother's explanation that his evidence was based on guesses, particularly given his claimed involvement in supporting the business. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided credible evidence of a successful business or income, and that there were stronger financial incentives for him to remain in Australia than to return to Bangladesh.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, and therefore the requirements of clause 600.211 were not met. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.